Release Lockerbie bomber Abdelbasset Ali al-Megrahi or not?

[Peter Dow]

Lockerbie bomber released.


Stephanie Bernstein whose husband Michael was killed in the Pan Am 103 fight bombed out of the sky and onto Lockerbie, Scotland, speaks to BBC News.

Kenny MacAskill should be ashamed. I think this is a sad day for the people of Scotland, for the people of the United Kingdom and for the people of the United States if a mass-murderer is allowed to go free.

BBC: Lockerbie bomber returns to Libya.

Your action in releasing Megrahi is as inexplicable as it is detrimental to the cause of justice. Indeed your action makes a mockery of the rule of law.

Your action gives comfort to terrorists around the world who now believe that regardless of the quality of the investigation, the conviction by jury after the defendant is given all due process, and sentence appropriate to the crime, the terrorist will be freed by one man's exercise of "compassion."

Your action rewards a terrorist even though he never admitted to his role in this act of mass murder and even though neither he nor the government of Libya ever disclosed the names and roles of others who were responsible.

BBC: FBI boss attacks Megrahi release

 

[FridgeMagnet]

I was just thinking "what this thread needs is some crap spam".

 

[DotCommunist]

someone post the photo of lothario pete with his chest bared. And his worryingly precis bird-spec.

 

[DexterTCN]

(nonsense)

Perhaps the FBI guy would like to give us his opinion of the current accusations of the CIA torturing people and if it makes "a mockery of justice".

Or perhaps not, it seems.

 

[Peter Dow]

Oil deals for Lockerbie bomber compassionate release.

How the UK employed Prince Andrew, the Duke of York to set up Libyan oil deals for compassionate release of the Lockerbie bomber Megrahi.

Prince Andrew, the Duke of York is the second son and third child of Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh. As well as carrying out various royal duties, he currently serves as the United Kingdom's Special Representative for International Trade and Investment reporting to Peter Mandelson who is the UK's current First Secretary of State, Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, President of the Board of Trade and Lord President of the Council. In that capacity he has visited Libya and met with Gaddafi several times to set up oil deals.

In 2007, Prince Andrew was appointed by his mother, the Queen, as the Lord High Commissioner of the Church of Scotland in 2007, a post previously held by David Steel, the first Presiding Officer of the re-convened Scottish Parliament and a post now held by George Reid, the 2nd former Presiding Officer of the new Scottish Parliament.

By use of such patronage, the UK royal family is able to form close links with influential persons in Scottish politics and with the Scottish churches.

Therefore Prince Andrew has all the connections anyone would ever need to set up a Libyan oil deals for Scottish justice "compassionate release" for the Lockerbie bomber.

Indeed, Colonel Gaddafi has publicly thanked Prince Andrew for arranging the release of Megrahi.

So Peter Mandelson may claim to know nothing of any such deal but he certainly appointed the right person, Prince Andrew, to set such a deal up and it looks like that is exactly what has happened.

Therefore whereas it may well be the case that Kenny MacAskill has not personally profited from Libyan oil deal money, it is entirely possible that some back channel deal involving third party donations to one or more of the Church of Scotland's worthy causes has bought pro-compassionate-release spiritual advice from the Church of Scotland clerics to Kenny MacAskill and it may be it is those who interpret MacAskill's Christian faith for him who were the ones who have convinced him that compassionate release was the thing to do in Megrahi's case.

Certainly, the church is always short of money and certainly that is how Arab monarchs and dictators often operate in their own countries - by funding Islamic programmes and sometimes even getting the Islamic clerics to put out pro-jehadi messages when they wish to incite terrorist wars by proxy fought by the likes of Al Qaeda but in a plausibly deniable way which is not easily identified directly as being ordered by the monarch or dictator concerned.

So supporting terrorism in this modest way has begun in European Christian churches as bought by Arab or African oil money. What is next?

Are we going to see Libyan or other oil money funding Christian crusader suicide bombers, bought and paid for by oil deal money?

It happened in the Arab world and it could happen here. The release of this terrorist is just the start unless we get wise to what this oil money in the wrong hands is buying - a terrorist war against our values of freedom and democracy and in favour of monarchy and dictatorship.

 

[laptop]

The interview was immediately followed by the anchor questioning al-Megrahi's lawyer and asking how his release would satisfy the families of the victims. Despite having just heard one of them stating that two wrongs don't make a right.

Of course, when they say "the victims" they mean "the Mail readers sitting on their sofas thinking 'if my child had been killed I'd want someone to suffer'."

The sick thing is that the US "justice" system appears to operate on this basis. I've read rejections of death-row appeals that paraphrase accurately as "heck, someone has to be punished for this crime".

 

[DJ Squelch]

and in other news today -

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/8215556.stm

The US army officer convicted for his part in the notorious My Lai massacre during the Vietnam War has offered his first public apology, a US report says.

Calley, 66, was convicted on 22 counts of murder for the 1968 massacre of 500 men, women and children in Vietnam.

He was sentenced to life in prison for his role in the killings in 1971. Then-US President Richard Nixon commuted his sentence to three years' house arrest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Calley

The prosecutor, Aubrey Daniel wrote, "The greatest tragedy of all will be if political expedience dictates the compromise of such a fundamental moral principle as the inherent unlawfulness of the murder of innocent persons."

a mockery of justice?

 

[Aravis]

This guy helped killed 270 innocent people. And now he's allowed to spend ramadan with his family. That's justice?

Bonkers.

You know this for a fact, do you? Because there seems to be some considerable doubt. Did you also believe we should invade Irag to find weapons of mass destruction?

 

[goldenecitrone]

and in other news today -

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/8215556.stm



a mockery of justice?

Indeed. You'd think Guantanamo Bay had never existed. The Head of the FBI is one hypocritical twat.

 

[MikeMcc]

...

I see the duty idiot is back

 

[detective-boy]

A subject for another thread perhaps.

Definitely. The vast majority of trials rely on circumstantial evidence to some extent and much of what we consider "proof" is actually nothing of the sort when we analyse it (e.g. CCTV relies on recognition of the person, either by others or by scientific analysis; DNA relies on there being no contamination (a major issue with trace DNA techniques) and with proper interpretation of what it means ...).

Almost every contested trial comes down to whether the jury believe one individual or another to some extent ... and we know how people tend to believe / sympathise with people they find attractive more tha n others, sterotype, have prejudices, make snap judgments on first impressions, etc.

Despite all this I think our criminal justice system gets it right more than it gets it wrong ... but at a cost of not convicting many, many guilty people (which, whilst equally "miscarriages of justice" as the conviction of innocent people, is obviously the better option).

Most coppers realise this and understand that that is why many, many investigations simply never get off the ground or fall through during the prosecution ... but the media / public constantly view failure to convict as a fuck-up - it must be someone's fault, there must have been mistakes. That pressure is unrealistic and unhelpful and encourages the bending of rules to achieve convictions and avoid criticism.

 

[detective-boy]

Mm. I think in this case that the extent of the circumstantial case really *has* been made public by now - not least because of the efforts of lawyers and journalists over the years in this really quite old case - and it remains appalling.

I'm pretty sure the main parts of it have ... but the whole point of a circumstantial case is the nuanced argument that draws those parts together and suggests a conclusion. That could only be fully understood from a full transcript of the trial ... and I have not seen anything approaching one of them (and even that would lose something in being written down and not spoken).

 

[detective-boy]

What really ticks me off is the media coverage.

Media in short attention span / uninterested in the facts / thick as shit shocker ... hold the front page a couple of paragraphs on page 94 ...

 

[London_Calling]

Will the UK/US special relationship survive?

Bless.

Can you charaterise that for me, perhaps with an example of the USA giving any quid pro quo for, say, committments in Iraq and Afghanistan?

 

[detective-boy]

Perhaps the FBI guy would like to give us his opinion of the current accusations of the CIA torturing people and if it makes "a mockery of justice".

Or perhaps not, it seems.

I would really like someone (and MacAskill would be splendid for the job) to go on the offensive and ask some really pointed questions about Guantanamo; torture; rendition; failure to acknowledge international law and all the other shite the fucking Americans are doing.

Attack in this case really would be the best form of defence!!

 

[laptop]

I would really like someone (and MacAskill would be splendid for the job) to go on the offensive and ask some really pointed questions about Guantanamo; torture; rendition; failure to acknowledge international law and all the other shite the fucking Americans are doing.

Attack in this case really would be the best form of defence!!

And it'd have the added advantage that he could have a go at the Sassenach Secret Services for their complicity

 

[London_Calling]

I would really like someone (and MacAskill would be splendid for the job) to go on the offensive and ask some really pointed questions about Guantanamo; torture; rendition; failure to acknowledge international law and all the other shite the fucking Americans are doing.

Attack in this case really would be the best form of defence!!

Could even mention the (very approx) 700,000 civilian deaths resulting from George Bush's failed attempt to assimilate an entire nation for the USA oil industry.

 

[8den]

I would really like someone (and MacAskill would be splendid for the job) to go on the offensive and ask some really pointed questions about Guantanamo; torture; rendition; failure to acknowledge international law and all the other shite the fucking Americans are doing.

Attack in this case really would be the best form of defence!!

Yeah cause the American Right are that self aware.

 

[DexterTCN]

/tabloid rant

Mr Dow...if one were to look at your posting history....you seem to have strong opinions on foreign prisoners being sent back to their own countries.

ie. U75 link

I would say all foreign convicted killers, even killers released from prisons in England should be banned from Scotland and sent back home to England if they are not from Scotland originally - back home where they can be watched by parole officers and the like.

The only exception to that "you-can-keep-your-convicted-killers" policy should be convicted killers with special political status such as IRA freedom fighter Martina Anderson who was rightly welcomed to the Scottish parliament not so long ago.

Are you able to shed some light on this contradiction or do we have to wait for you to send it to the printers so we can get a nice front page splash on it?

d-b....I totally agree on your idea of taking the argument to the Americans if they want to have it. American stock isn't as high as they seem to think, they seem to have some strange presumptions that their old testament version of right and wrong still carries some weight.

Well they can just fuck right off.

(comments being made on these associated subjects, not a generalisation against every American.)

 

[Peter Dow]

Ambiguity and misinterpretation happens

Mr Dow...if one were to look at your posting history....you seem to have strong opinions on foreign prisoners being sent back to their own countries.

ie. U75 link

Are you able to shed some light on this contradiction or do we have to wait for you to send it to the printers so we can get a nice front page splash on it?

Well there is a general problem of communication - which is that the words you use can be interpreted in different ways, possibly leading to an unintended misinterpretation which you are entitled to query.

Thank you for the opportunity to re-visit my earlier words and clarify.

For example, consider the phrase "foreign convicted criminals". What are the different meanings which might be thought of?

Well "foreign convicted criminals" is ambiguous enough to be interpreted as "foreign-convicted criminals" - criminals convicted in a foreign land, or it might mean "foreign convicted-criminals" - convicted criminals from a foreign land who have been convicted here perhaps and no doubt there are other possible meanings.

Obviously, when ambiguity is most undesirable, such as when one is drafting a law, one ought to put a lot of effort into avoiding ambiguity. In the cut and thrust of political debate there is simply not time to avoid ambiguities arising and one must clarify as one goes along in the debate.

In the earlier post you linked to, I was thinking of foreign-convicted foreign-killers who were convicted outside of Scotland, (such as a Lithuanian convicted of manslaughter in Germany, say) foreign-convicted foreign-killers who had been imprisoned in a foreign land where they committed the crime but had been released after serving their sentence.

Where there was no particular responsibility of Scottish authorities to supervise such released killers (them not having committed the crime in Scotland, them not being born or brought up in Scotland such as), we should not allow them into Scotland.

You have gone out of your way to try to mis-apply my words about different circumstances to the entirely different case of the Lockerbie bomber. I do not think I was so ambitious that my words were intended to deal with all circumstances.

I would hestitate to draft legislation for all circumstances - that being a lot of work and even if I got the text spot on covering all circumstances it would be unlikely that my draft would be enacted so all my work would go to waste.

Since the Lockerbie bombing was committed in Scotland, we ought to be a country relied upon to secure the convicted criminal concerned. The other jurisdiction I would trust with Megrahi would be the US government, many of the victims being American, though perhaps they would agree not to execute him for the crime as they do in other cases of transfer from European Union countries where we don't execute to the USA where they do.

 

[gabi]

Could even mention the (very approx) 700,000 civilian deaths resulting from George Bush's failed attempt to assimilate an entire nation for the USA oil industry.

Wait. Your country's just released a convicted mass-murderer in the interests of gaining control of more oil and gas. How you reconcile your statement above with that fact?

 

[DotCommunist]

Wait. Your country's just released a convicted mass-murderer in the interests of gaining control of more oil and gas. How you reconcile your statement above with that fact?

we fitted him up, we'll fuck him off.

 

[MikeMcc]

Wait. Your country's just released a convicted mass-murderer in the interests of gaining control of more oil and gas. How you reconcile your statement above with that fact?

And it's also likely that they did it to avoid the need for the appeal that may well have cleared him, you keep denying that. Nor do 'we' need to reconcile anything. Personally I believe he's likely to be innocent, and that it was right that he was released. That we benefit from the realpolitik is a bonus.

 

[DotCommunist]

Over the years I have been a prosecutor, and recently as the Director of the FBI, I have made it a practice not to comment on the actions of other prosecutors, since only the prosecutor handling the case has all the facts and the law before him in reaching the appropriate decision.

yeah. STFU then eh?

 

[Roadkill]

Personally I believe he's likely to be innocent, and that it was right that he was released. That we benefit from the realpolitik is a bonus.

I'm not at all convinced he's innocent but I am convinced that his conviction's not sound, that he should have been retried if there were time, but that in view of his state of health releasing him to die is the least-worst option.

I'm also becoming convinced that the right decision has been made for the wrong reasons. When I posted that comment a few pages back about how political the whole business has been I was wrong to suggest Westminster had washed its hands of the whole business - in view of the apparent negotiations between Brown and Gadaffi six weeks ago - and didn't know about the supposed trade deals. The whole thing stinks to high heaven IMO.

 

[weltweit]

Does the dropping of his appeal and the release of al-Megrahi on compassionate grounds mean this is the last of it in terms of investigations?

Even if al-Megrahi were guilty in that he was involved, he could not have pulled it off on his own. There are others out there who took part in the bombing.

Does this dropping of the appeal mean we will now never know the truth?

 

[DexterTCN]

That's the idea.

 

[DJ Squelch]

Does the dropping of his appeal and the release of al-Megrahi on compassionate grounds mean this is the last of it in terms of investigations?

Even if al-Megrahi were guilty in that he was involved, he could not have pulled it off on his own. There are others out there who took part in the bombing.

Does this dropping of the appeal mean we will now never know the truth?

there was an article by Robert Fisk in The Indepependent yesterday that said something along the lines of that under Scottish law even if Al-Megrahi died his relatives could pursue an appeal to clear his name. I doubt very much if this will happen though but you never know.

 

[detective-boy]

Even if al-Megrahi were guilty in that he was involved, he could not have pulled it off on his own. There are others out there who took part in the bombing.

I am not aware of any other viable leads which can be, or are being, further pursued. The basis for the closure of the active part of the investigation is something which I have never seen explained or justified in any way, any where. It is perhaps another are in which questions need to be asked. (Although I believe the prosecution case was that he had actually arranged for the bomb to be placed on the aircraft and, as such, had perhaps the most hands-on role .. though I many be wrong about that).

 

[FridgeMagnet]

We'll probably know more of the truth in a couple of decades, when people are retiring and writing their memoirs. Usual deal.